Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626454›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019

Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science.

Anthony Smith, Lucia Parrino, Domagoj Vrbos, Giulia Nicolini, Massimiano Bucchi, Melanie Carr, Junshi Chen, Leonie Dendler, Kannan Krishnaswamy, Davide Lecchini and 7 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Technical assistance in the field of risk communication.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Conducting fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  7. Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  8. Envisioning the expertise of the future.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Anthony SmithEuropean Food Safety Authority Italy.
Lucia ParrinoEuropean Food Safety Authority Italy.
Domagoj VrbosEuropean Food Safety Authority Italy.
Giulia NicoliniEuropean Food Safety Authority Italy.
Massimiano BucchiUniversity of Trento Italy.
Melanie CarrEuropean Medicines Agency the Netherlands.
Junshi ChenNational Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment China.
Leonie DendlerFederal Institute for Risk Assessment Germany.
Kannan KrishnaswamyThe George Institute for Global Health India.
Davide LecchiniItalian Ministry for Health Italy.
Ragnar LöfstedtKing's College London United Kingdom.
Michelle PatelFood Standards Agency United Kingdom.
Lucia ReischCopenhagen Business School DK.
Didier VerlooEuropean Food Safety Authority Italy.
Ellen VosUniversity of Maastricht the Netherlands.
Fabiana ZolloCa' Foscari University of Venice Italy.
Barbara GallaniEuropean Food Safety Authority Italy.
European Food Safety Authority · ITCa' Foscari University of Venice · ITChina National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment · CNCopenhagen Business School · DKEuropean Medicines Agency · NLFederal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEFood Standards Agency · GBGeorge Institute for Global Health · INKing's College London · GBMaastricht University · NLMinistero della Salute · ITUniversity of Trento · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents selected highlights from the 'Engaging with society' session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18-21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post-truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio-economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.

Indexed as

public engagementregulatory sciencescience communicationsocietystakeholderstrust

Identifiers

PMID32626454
PMCPMC7015506
OpenAlexW2962410685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.